All this system talk...

[helene_t]

I'd expect the difference between

 

- a good system (relatively simple, but well-designed)

 

- and a poor system (not hideously poor...e.g. Capp or DONT over 1NT)

 

to be about 1%.

1% is huge. I doubt I would lose that much by trading my favorite system for Vienna or Culbertson.

[Gerben42]

1% of what?

 

Much of "system" is basically making agreements to avoid misunderstandings. Writing it down is a must for me. This way I'd end up with extensive notes even playing "standard" (whatever that is).

 

There doesn't seem to be much of a standard in the Netherlands where I learned bridge, nor in Germany. Locally, maybe.

[Gerben42]

If I were going to play mainly or exclusively MPs, I would play some form of EHAA or Fantunes variety, because I feel it puts a lot more pressure on the opponents board after board.

 

Whereas if I were going to mainly play IMPs, I would play strong club + relays, because I think the slam bidding methods are superior.

 

Strangely with my most regular partners these are the two styles we play. Would switch the strong club for a strong pass if not for the regulations, though.

 

What I found BTW is that Fantunes is very tough for the opps at teams too, but only in waves... Some 16-board segments we don't get much the do, others you can see opps thinking "why doesn't the bidding EVER start quietly".

[helene_t]

1% of what?

1% percentage point MP, I suppose. Of course if my average MP score is 25% it amounts to 4% :P

[hrothgar]

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

 

So unless you are Meckwell playing in a regular club game or something, don't play what the field plays.

First and foremost, I agree completely with Gerben's comment. The notion of variance is incredible important.

 

Second: I echo earlier comments that players should trying to find a bidding system nature matches one's humors.

[Tcyk]

The discussion answers the question. If a system was superior to other systems everyone would want to play that system. It just doesn't happen that way. Everyone would play Revision when playing IMPs or Match Point Precision when playing MPs.

 

It appears to me that you must play a system that matches your personality. Some players would go nuts playing Roth-Stone and others would find EHAA (light initial action) absolutely impossible. There are chess players who like positional play and others that prefer more active play. The same is true in bridge.

 

Going against the field is an interesting concept. If going against the field conveyed an advantage, more people would play canape systems. Dennis Dawson told me that when he played canape, hands were often played from the opposite side of the board played by the field and he often picked off the opponents suit. With one partner, I played canape transfers over NT. Transfers were always either weak or invitational, never forcing. With an invitational hand, we transferred to a 4-card suit and then bid our 5+ card suit. It was great fun and resulted in tops and bottoms. Oh yes, we were playintg 12-14 1NT too.

 

I've had partners that just die when they discover you have put them in a 4-3 fit. They don't have any idea how to play the hand. With these partners you never raise their response with less than four cards in the suit even if you have a useful singleton or void. You score low when the Moysian fit is the right spot but overall you gain by making your partner happy.

[Finch]

Going against the field is an interesting concept. If going against the field conveyed an advantage, more people would play canape systems.

Depends what you mean by 'advantage'. Going against the field increases your volatility but may or may not increase your expectation. As 75% of bridge players think they are well above average in their field, they don't see the need to try and increase their volatility.

 

Playing in the European open pairs it was noticeable how much more variability there was in the results on the competitive deals due to the wide range of systems being played. (the world mixed less so, not sure why, perhaps because the partnerships were generally less experienced)

[cherdano]

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

However, if you have an advantage in play or defense, then increasing the variance by using a non-standard system will reduce your expectation value (unless your non-standard system is superior). Did your simulations take this into account?

[hrothgar]

System can be a way to increase variance while at the same time not reducing the expectation value. By not playing what the field plays you will thus have a higher percentage of top 3 finishes and wins, unless you were winning "all the time" anyway (expected result > 65%). Yes I've done simulations about this.

However, if you have an advantage in play or defense, then increasing the variance by using a non-standard system will reduce your expectation value (unless your non-standard system is superior). Did your simulations take this into account?

As I recall, Gerben's sims were examining the trade off between the expected value of a bidding system and its variance.

 

Lets assume that I am designing a bidding system. To what extent would I be willing to sacrifice overall performance (the expected value on a hand) in order to increase the variance.

 

The structure could be modified pretty easily to consider the example of a player (or partnership) with a high expected value.

 

I have claimed for years that the only logicial way to interprete the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

[han]

I have claimed for years that the only logicial way to interprete the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

If we were living in a logical world then people might take you seriously when you say things like this.

[fred]

I have claimed for years that the only logicial way to interprete the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

How about this logical alternative:

 

ACBL policy decisions in this area are designed to give average ACBL members what they think that average ACBL members want.

 

While it is true that top players are among those involved in making these decisions (along with teachers, directors, club managers, and politician types), it really bothers me when people suggest that such decisions are motivated by self-interest of the leading players. Recent editorial comments on this subject in Australian Bridge (a generally excellent magazine IMO) have been especially disgusting in their tone and implications (and especially hard to take seriously when you consider the self-interest of the person who writes these editorials).

 

For a couple of years I was on an ACBL committee that was responsible for recommending policy changes in this area. I can promise you that there is only one reason that I was willing to serve on this committees (a thankless task that tends to have a negative impact on my ability to perform well at the important tournaments in which these committees meet):

 

To try to make ACBL tournaments more enjoyable for the people who play in them.

 

I cannot promise that all other members of the same committee are in it for the same reasons of course, but I believe that those who served at the same time as me (Hamman, Bramley, Beatty, Martel and various Weinsteins) are not only people of integrity but also the sort of bridge players who are not afraid to play against unusual methods.

 

Your post, like the Australian Bridge editorials, denegrates these fine people and fine players who donate their time, energy, and thoughts in an honest effort to make bridge better for everyone. Even if you disagree with their judgment, to suggest that their motives are unpure is not fair, not appropriate, and definitely not classy in my view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Edited February 8, 2008 by fred

[TimG]

I have claimed for years that the only logical way to interpret the ACBL's system regulations is that the are trying to suppress high variance systems in an attempt to protect the top tier of players.

Couldn't you say the same about many efforts to prevent change? Those who are expert (happy, rich, successful, whatever) in the status quo environment will benefit by keeping the status quo. But, isn't it possible that sometimes the status quo is actually good and maintaining it a worthy endeavor?

 

Maybe the ACBL's system regulation policies are aimed at protecting the game of bridge and this just happens to simultaneously protect top tier players...as well as protecting middle and lower tier players.

[awm]

I'm afraid I have to take hrothgar's side on the conventions issue.

 

While I think it's admirable that Fred presumes the best of people, I simply can't imagine who benefits from the situation when no one can figure out what is or isn't allowed. For example, prior to a recent NABC I was trying to figure out whether we are allowed to play a 3NT opening showing a sound 4M preempt (in national open events!). Looking at the convention charts I could not figure this out. I sent email to Rick Beye at ACBL and he could not figure it out either. He suggested it might be mid-chart (with no reasoning behind this) and that I needed a suggested defense, then informed me that no defense could be approved in the two months before nationals (regardless of the fact that this convention is probably 40 years old and not particularly harder to defend than 3NT showing a "solid major suit" which is on the general chart). Phil Clayton asked a director and was told this convention is general chart and proceeded to play it in general chart events...

 

I asked ACBL whether 2M showing five cards in the bid suit and a four-plus card minor was allowed on the general chart. I got conflicting answers from two "authorities." I asked ACBL whether I could play 2NT showing 5+ diamonds and a second 5+ suit on the mid-chart and was told that "no defense will ever be approved for this" even though it appears to be mid-chart.

 

Obviously one can debate endlessly about what "should be allowed" and what "would make the bridge playing population happiest." On most of these issues I have no idea -- my gut feeling is that the majority of bridge players really don't care about these things one way or another. But who could possibly benefit from a situation where the rules are muddled and unclear? The EBU has a very clear set of guidelines with lots of examples. ACBL even took the definition of "relay system" off the convention chart in their latest changes (thus making things more ambiguous).

 

My view is, the only people who could possibly benefit from vague and fuzzy rules are the people with widely known reputations who have served on a lot of laws committees and such. They can convince the director to rule in their favor (and I have seen this many times) if only because the director can't understand the regulations either and just takes the expert's word. So a fuzzy set of regulations basically means different rules for different people.

[mikestar]

System regulation is always a trade off and will always generate controversy. In the ACBL particularly, the aging membership presents challenges: while the better senior players are quite willing to play/play against modern methods, many of the rank and file are quite conservative. Some time ago, my regular partner and I were playing simple Precision at the club level and were often accused of cheating--not because our results were so good, but the perception was that the use of the system was cheating in itself.

 

So which policy does the ACBL pursue? Restrict systems so the old guard isn't driven away, or adopt a more free-wheeling style that will attract more younger players? The current General Convention Chart is a compromise, and has all the virtues and all the vices of compromise.

 

In theory, each club could choose its own system regulations--a senior center could be even more restrictive than the GCC, a university club could be more permissive than the Super Chart, etc. In practice every club I'm familiar with either adheres to the GCC as written or removes the limits on NT defenses.

 

By the way, transfer advances are now GCC legal though they have zero following among average players. They have very clear technical advantages and are being increasingly adopted among stronger pairs. Does this suggest that reducing variance is the big goal here?

 

IMHO, looking for a logical explanation for the business of governing over 100,000 diverse members is not particularly logical.

[Guest Jlall]

here we go again.

[Gerben42]

My observations about the American regulations is that they try to reinvent a wheel and fail to do so.

 

On 1 side, the international rules about HUM and Brown Sticker systems are already a working wheel. What has been achieved with the ACBL regulations is that:

 

* Differences in regulations between USA and international rules prohibit foreign pairs to play their WBF-approved methods in national US events, and conversely the national teams of the USA cannot practice against these methods.

 

* There is a "MidChart" that notes what COULD be allowed, but some of it will never be allowed because a committee refuses to accept any suggested defense against it.

 

* Finally, the GCC is defined in such a way that apparently even seasoned directors cannot tell what is allowed and what is not.

 

Strangely something similar happens in Germany. Other than category "A" (anything goes), "B+" (no HUM but BSC") and "B" (no HUM, no BSC) in their wisdom the DBV has created a category C that is more complicated than B to explain, and makes it but impossible to play normal bridge. In my then local club in Tübingen, Germany on Friday night we played this category "C" until it was deemed to complicated and they changed to "B". The old ladies didn't seem to mind.

 

If asked, I'd volunteer to be on a committee to fix the mess in Germany...

[mikestar]

My previous comment was in respect to the restrictiveness of the convention regulations. As far as fuzziness is concerned, the ACBL would do very well to take a page from the EBU's book and work much harder on having coherent, well-explained regulations. I offer no defense whatever for this aspect of the ACBL's convention regulation, though neither do I find this sinister.

[fred]

I'm afraid I have to take hrothgar's side on the conventions issue.

 

While I think it's admirable that Fred presumes the best of people, I simply can't imagine who benefits from the situation when no one can figure out what is or isn't allowed. For example, prior to a recent NABC I was trying to figure out whether we are allowed to play a 3NT opening showing a sound 4M preempt (in national open events!). Looking at the convention charts I could not figure this out. I sent email to Rick Beye at ACBL and he could not figure it out either. He suggested it might be mid-chart (with no reasoning behind this) and that I needed a suggested defense, then informed me that no defense could be approved in the two months before nationals (regardless of the fact that this convention is probably 40 years old and not particularly harder to defend than 3NT showing a "solid major suit" which is on the general chart). Phil Clayton asked a director and was told this convention is general chart and proceeded to play it in general chart events...

 

I asked ACBL whether 2M showing five cards in the bid suit and a four-plus card minor was allowed on the general chart. I got conflicting answers from two "authorities." I asked ACBL whether I could play 2NT showing 5+ diamonds and a second 5+ suit on the mid-chart and was told that "no defense will ever be approved for this" even though it appears to be mid-chart.

 

Obviously one can debate endlessly about what "should be allowed" and what "would make the bridge playing population happiest." On most of these issues I have no idea -- my gut feeling is that the majority of bridge players really don't care about these things one way or another. But who could possibly benefit from a situation where the rules are muddled and unclear? The EBU has a very clear set of guidelines with lots of examples. ACBL even took the definition of "relay system" off the convention chart in their latest changes (thus making things more ambiguous).

 

My view is, the only people who could possibly benefit from vague and fuzzy rules are the people with widely known reputations who have served on a lot of laws committees and such. They can convince the director to rule in their favor (and I have seen this many times) if only because the director can't understand the regulations either and just takes the expert's word. So a fuzzy set of regulations basically means different rules for different people.

IMO you are making a serious mistake by drawing conclusions about what motivates these decisions based on observations you have made about some of the consequences of these decisions.

 

I agree with you completely that the current state of affairs is not a good one and that everyone (including most of the top players by the way) are confused. I also agree that it is not unusual to find leading players who try to manipulate TDs by intentionally feeding them BS. Probably this happens even more with less experienced players, but the top players tend to be more successful at it.

 

But to suggest that the leading players have intentionally tried to confuse everyone because that is good for them.... Words fail me.

 

At least Hrothgar's explanation is credible. Your explanation is not (at least to me).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

Adam, I think the difference is that in the EBU, there are a couple of individuals who are

1. willing to invest a lot of time into this issue, and

2. are highly qualified to do that.

Of course I don't doubt that all the players Fred listed are highly qualified to judge system regulations, but I doubt anyone of them has invested an amount of time comparable to e.g. David Stevenson in the EBU (and I am not blaming them for that).

 

Your speculation about motives is really off-base, sorry.

[jtfanclub]

While it is true that top players are among those involved in making these decisions (along with teachers, directors, club managers, and politician types), it really bothers me when people suggest that such decisions are motivated by self-interest of the leading players.

Why does this bother you? Why is it denigrating?

 

Suppose you weren't a bridge expert. Suppose you were a Texas Hold 'Em expert. You sit down to play the Texas Hold 'Em Championships. The first round, it's you (the expert) and seven palookas.

 

Very quickly, you find that every time you bet, either everybody folds or somebody goes all in. You never, ever see a flop without all you money in the pot. Pretty quickly, you figure out the odds...even if you waited until you had a pair of aces, the odds of beating a random hand is still less than seven in eight. While the odds are higher that you'll win vs. any individual, overall your odds of making it to the next table are slim. Meanwhile, if they played 'like experts' you'd have close to a 100% chance of winning.

 

This wouldn't just be bad for you, it would be bad for poker. You don't even need to look at your hand in order to play Palooka Poker. You don't even have to know what poker is, you just have to know that if the expert is folding 7/8ths of the time you always fold when they bet, and if he's folding less you always go all in when they bet. I can teach a 5 year old how to do that. If a bunch of 5 year olds are beating the experts, Poker isn't going to survive for long.

 

So the poker experts change the rules. Rebuys, so even if the palookas eliminate the pros the pros can come in the next round when most of the palookas are gone (the palookas can't afford the stake). Instead of having everybody ante, only two people ante, one high and one medium, which means the palookas can't check, see what the expert does, and then decide whether to go all in. And I suspect their are other rules as well that favor expert players. For example, in palooka poker, once you've dumped the expert your best strategy is to make sure that only one person advances, rather than several people struggle through with less money. So on the last hand you have to survive to qualify, may as well roll dice and high roll takes all. They may have a carryover limit for this purpose.

 

In bridge, high-variance bids are equivalent to palooka poker. Suppose that I open 5 card suits with 11-15 hcp at the 3 level. That's a huge variance bid. Sometimes it'll get me tops, more often it'll get me bottoms, but the bidding skill of my opponent won't make much of a difference. If I'm playing in an online ACBL game, if I get lucky against the top pair they'll be lucky to scratch. If I get average against the top pair but unlucky against several other pairs, probably one of those pairs is going to win. I've turned the game into a crap shoot.

 

Why is it wrong for the rules to reduce variance to make it more likely that the best team will win?

[awm]

To clarify, I don't think anyone set out to say "let's design some fuzzy regulations so we can always get our way." It's not that sinister.

 

What I do think happened, is that at some point a fuzzy set of regulations came into existence. Since that time, there have been a moderately large number of complaints from people who couldn't play their pet methods, or who were unable to determine whether their methods were allowed. A lot of conventions were submitted for "recommended defenses" and relatively few were approved.

 

So the question we have to ask is, why isn't anyone changing this state of affairs? Certainly it could be that people just don't have the time to work on it. But then we have to ask: why are these folks on the committee to determine this stuff if they don't have time to work on it? We have had a lot of the same names on the conventions and defenses committee for quite sometime (nor am I clear on how these people are selected for that committee). If they can honestly say "we have not improved the regulations or approved defenses because we simply don't have time" that's understandable, but why don't they give way to other folks with more free time to spend? I am sure there is no shortage of volunteers (although not perhaps volunteers with the bridge playing credentials of Jeff Meckstroth and Chip Martel). In fact one could argue that a clearer set of rules would save a lot of people time in the long run since there'd be fewer queries of "is this allowed?" and fewer "please approve my defense" as well as a quicker way to answer any such queries that exist.

 

Assuming it's not a time issue why isn't anyone changing this state of affairs? I think the logical explanation is that the people in charge don't feel that there is a problem. But given how upset hrothgar (and myself, and others) seem to be, how can there not be a problem? We have people quitting ACBL because their methods aren't allowed, and other people quitting tournament play because people play weird stuff they can't figure out. Obviously if these upset individuals include the people making the rules, or their bridge-playing friends they would perceive a problem and do something. So the attitude seems to be well it's not a problem for us combined with the people who are upset about this are not important or numerous. So while it may not be as nefarious as my previous post seems to suggest, I do think the situation is that the people on the committee can convince directors to approve whatever they want to play, so they don't perceive a problem for themselves. At the same time, the people who do have a problem are a small minority (people who want to play weird stuff and don't have any clout with the directors). So it's easy for the committee to pass this off as "it's a small minority of crackpots who want to play weird stuff" and ignore them. Unfortunately this creates a double standard where "acknowledged expert players who want to play weird stuff" get to play it (i.e. Meckstroth etc) whereas "random players who want to play weird stuff" don't get to, even in the same events.

[fred]

While it is true that top players are among those involved in making these decisions (along with teachers, directors, club managers, and politician types), it really bothers me when people suggest that such decisions are motivated by self-interest of the leading players.

Why does this bother you? Why is it denigrating?

Because I have served on this committee and I know my motivations for doing so as well as my motivations for the opinions I expressed while on the committee.

 

Because most of the other leading players who serve of these committees are people I admire and respect. In some cases they are close friends of many years and/or former partners/teammates. While I cannot say that I *know* what motivates these people, I hope I am a good enough judge of character that my take on them is not far off the mark.

 

Wouldn't it bother you if someone suggested that you or your friends were abusing their positions of power for their own self-interest when you know (at least in the case of your own motivations) or strongly suspect (in the case of your friends' motivations) that it is not true?

 

Wouldn't it bother you even more if you knew that your own participation in this process was actually contrary to your own self-interest and that your motivations were purely a matter of service and duty?

 

Undeserved character assassination of people I admire bothers me. Doesn't it bother you?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Edited February 8, 2008 by fred

[blackshoe]

ACBL even took the definition of "relay system" off the convention chart in their latest changes (thus making things more ambiguous).

Huh? In the 2005 edition of the convention charts, which is what I get when I follow the link on the ACBL web site, item 3 under definitions is

A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.

 

Is there a newer chart? If so, where might I find it and why does the link still point to this old one?

[helene_t]

I have never served on a regulatory board of a bridge federation and I'm not even a certified TD so my opinion may be mood. But based on my experience from policy-making various other kinds of organizations, including bridge clubs, I would say that

- Rules very easily become muddy

- This is partly due to the lack of lawyers serving on the boards. People without a law degree are generally not able to formulate coherent rules, even if they are very smart and experts on the field with which the organization deals.

- It is also partly due to conflicting positions within the boards. Sometimes a muddy compromise is reached to avoid anybody losing face. Sometimes no consensus is reached so the secretary obviously can only write down mud or else face accusations of being biased.

 

That the ACBL convention policy is full of mud is believable and unsurprising. I personally do not need any conspiracy theory to account for it. What Arend and Fred writes is completely plausible to me.

[blackshoe]

In practice every club I'm familiar with either adheres to the GCC as written or removes the limits on NT defenses.

In practice, every club with which I'm familiar (a half dozen or so here in Rochester NY and nearby areas) doesn't specify any convention regulations. Until, that is, somebody complains about something or other. Then you get things like GCC legal conventions being banned, or required to be treated as if they were mid-chart, or mid-chart conventions allowed without restriction, or other such nonsense, all based on the director's whim of the moment.

 

The general situation in the ACBL sucks. The situation around here sucks worse. :(